Primary Navigation

RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging

If we could replace the rigging with the mast up, I m sure it will be no challenge for the rigger! BTW If any of you would like to cross your fingers for us,

Message 1 of 8
, Oct 24, 2005

0 Attachment

If we could replace the rigging with the mast up, I'm sure it will be no challenge for the rigger!

BTW If any of you would like to cross your fingers for us, we just heard that our marina in Key West took a major hit with boats sunk, on the docks and in the mangroves. No further details and we are really hoping we aren't one of them.

many thanks for your responses on the rigging question that I postedrecently.

I am still waiting for a final quote to come in but, as I am only 40 and wehave some very useful steps on the mast I may well choose to replace atleast the lowers myself. The rigger reckons he can do the rest with themast in situ.

We replaced the upper and lower shrouds ourselves. We took the old ones, afew at a time, to a rigger who made up new ones including new turnbuckles(rigging screws), clevis pins, cotters etc. In the US, it's difficult toget the original metric diameters so we went with the fractional inchequivalent size.

The back and fore stays have been replaced within the last 5 years byprofessional riggers...the fore stay was done when we had a new furlerinstalled and the back stay when we had insulators installed for our SSBantenna.

For all the discussion regarding the hairpin chainplates on this board, theweakest point of the rigging, in my opinion, are the lower clevis pins. Ourold ones had some wear at the point where they contact the chainplate whichwasn't that obvious without close inspection. Now we keep a better watch onthis and will replace them appropriately.

JimS/V AlegriaCN 35 #68

>From: "Colin Campbell-Dunlop" <colinj@...>>Reply-To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com>To: <campernicholson@yahoogroups.com>>Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging>Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:51:46 +0100>>MessageDear Graham,>>thanks for your input on this.>>I am still following up quotes with other riggers but what you have done>sounds like a viable solution.>>As I say, still checking this out but there is a possibilty that the>fittings on the mast may not take a larger sized tang so to upgrade from>6mm>to 7mm on the lowers would, potentially, mean putting in new plates on the>rig which would cost a lot extra. Hence the consideration of 6mm dyform to>give the extra strength.>>Re the chainplates. What you say is probably very good advice. Mind you,>the boat has been very lightly used in 18 years (believe it or not) and>there are no signs of leaks or movement in that area but, that said, I am a>natural worrier so it probably would be a good idea to get an inspection>done.>>Congrats on your new boat and thanks again for the input.>>Kind regards>>Colin> -----Original Message-----> From: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com>[mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Graham Norbury> Sent: 18 October 2005 22:14> To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing rigging>>> Colin,>> We had Luna Azul's standing rigging replaced around 2000, and at that>time>the riggers upsized the fore & aft lowers to match the cap shrouds,>forestay>& backstay. The only small hiccup was obtaining swages & wire to fit the>metric "hooks" used on the mast. I can't recall exactly what size wire was>used, but 9/32" (7mm) seems to ring a bell or two. Personally I think>Dieform would be an unecessary expense, but it sure does look pretty.>> Presumably you will be removing & inspecting the chainplates while the>rig>is out? Arbitrarily we decided to replace ours at the same time as the>standing rigging. If you go that route, I recommend having new fore/aft>lowers upsided to 1/2" to match the cap shrouds and backstay. Earlier>this>year we had one of the aft lower (3/8") hoops fracture in very benign>conditions. Most disconcerting!>> Graham> s/v Tookish, Stevens 47> (formerly owners of Luna Azul, CN35 #220)> -----Original Message-----> From: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com>[mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Colin> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:58 AM> To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com> Subject: [campernicholson] Standing rigging>>> Dear All,>> I am in the process of getting some quotes for replacement of the> standing rigging on Trutz.>> I think that as it is nearly all original and therefore nearly 20> years old it is about time!>> Question for you all is this. What size rigging do you have on your> boats?>> To me, the rigging on Trutz seems a bit feeble given the> displacement. The cap shrouds are 7mm and the backstay is the> same. Lowers are 6mm and the forestay (new in 98) is 8mm.>> A rigger here has suggested replacing with 'diform'? which is> apparently stronger size for size.>> Do any of you have any experience of the stuff?>> Many thanks in advance for your help.>> Rgds>> Colin>> Trutz 35/225>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS>> a.. Visit your group "campernicholson" on the web.>> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:> campernicholson-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of>Service.>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------->

Yahoo! Groups Links

Colin Campbell-Dunlop

Dear Denece, Thanks for the input. Jo and I really hope that your boat is OK. We are sitting here in Gosport having had a severe gale 9 warning and now we are

Message 2 of 8
, Oct 25, 2005

0 Attachment

Dear
Denece,

Thanks for
the input.

Jo and I
really hope that your boat is OK.We are sitting here in Gosport having had a severe gale 9 warning and now we are feeling really
quite lucky indeed.

If we could replace the
rigging with the mast up, I'm sure it will be no challenge for the rigger!

BTW If any of you would
like to cross your fingers for us, we just heard that our marina in Key West
took a major hit with boats sunk, on the docks and in the mangroves. No further
details and we are really hoping we aren't one of them.

many thanks for your responses on the rigging
question that I postedrecently.

I am still waiting for a final quote to come in
but, as I am only 40 and wehave some very useful steps on the mast I may well
choose to replace atleast the lowers myself. The rigger reckons
he can do the rest with themast in situ.

We replaced the upper and lower shrouds
ourselves. We took the old ones, afew at a time, to a rigger who made up new ones
including new turnbuckles(rigging screws), clevis pins, cotters etc.
In the US, it's difficult toget the original metric diameters so w! e went
with the fractional inchequivalent size.

The back and fore stays have been replaced within
the last 5 years byprofessional riggers...the fore stay was done when
we had a new furlerinstalled and the back stay when we had insulators
installed for our SSBantenna.

For all the discussion regarding the hairpin
chainplates on this board, theweakest point of the rigging, in my opinion, are
the lower clevis pins. Ourold ones had some wear at the point where they
contact the chainplate whichwasn't that obvious without close
inspection. Now we keep a better watch onthis and will replace them appropriately.

JimS/V AlegriaCN 35 #68

>From: "Colin Campbell-Dunlop"
<colinj@...>>Reply-To: campernicholson@yahoogroups.com>To: <campernicholson@yahoogroups.com>>Subject: RE: [campernicholson] Standing
rigging>Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 0! 7:51:46 +0100>>MessageDear Graham,>>thanks for your input on this.>>I am still following up quotes with other
riggers but what you have done>sounds like a viable solution.>>As I say, still checking this out but there is
a possibilty that the>fittings on the mast may not take a larger
sized tang so to upgrade from>6mm>to 7mm on the lowers would, potentially, mean
putting in new plates on the>rig which would cost a lot extra. Hence
the consideration of 6mm dyform to>give the extra strength.>>Re the chainplates. What you say is probably
very good advice. Mind you,>the boat has been very lightly used in 18
years (believe it or not) and>there are no signs of leaks or movement in
that area but, that said, I am a>natural worrier so it probably would be a good
idea to get an inspection>done.>>Congrats on your new boat and thanks again for
the input.>>Kind regards&g! t;>Colin> -----Original Message-----> From:
campernicholson@yahoogroups.com>[mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com]On
Behalf Of Graham Norbury> Sent: 18 October 2005 22:14> To:
campernicholson@yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: [campernicholson]
Standing rigging>>> Colin,>> We had Luna Azul's standing
rigging replaced around 2000, and at that>time>the riggers upsized the fore & aft lowers
to match the cap shrouds,>forestay>& backstay. The only small hiccup
was obtaining swages & wire to fit the>metric "hooks" used on the
mast. I can't recall exactly what size wire was>used, but 9/32" (7mm) seems to ring a
bell or two. Personally I think>Dieform would be an unecessary expense, but it
sure does look pretty.>> &nb! sp; Presumably you will be
removing & inspecting the chainplates w hile the>rig>is out? Arbitrarily we decided to
replace ours at the same time as the>standing rigging. If you go that route,
I recommend having new fore/aft>lowers upsided to 1/2" to match the cap
shrouds and backstay. Earlier>this>year we had one of the aft lower (3/8")
hoops fracture in very benign>conditions. Most disconcerting!>> Graham> s/v Tookish, Stevens 47> (formerly owners of Luna Azul,
CN35 #220)> -----Original
Message-----> From:
campernicholson@yahoogroups.com>[mailto:campernicholson@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Colin> Sent: Tuesday,
October 18, 2005 10:58 AM> To:
campernicholson@yahoogroups.com> Subject:
[campernicholson] Standing rigging>>>! Dear All,>> I am in the process
of getting some quotes for replacement of the> standing rigging on
Trutz.>> I think that as it is
nearly all original and therefore nearly 20> years old it is about
time!>> Question for you all
is this. What size rigging do you have on your> boats?>> To me, the rigging on
Trutz seems a bit feeble given the> displacement. The
cap shrouds are 7mm and the backstay is the> same. Lowers
are 6mm and the forestay (new in 98) is 8mm.>> A rigger here has
suggested replacing with 'diform'? which is> apparently stronger
size for size.>! > Do any of you have
any experience of the stuff?>> Many thanks in
advance for your help.>> Rgds>> Colin>> Trutz 35/225>>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS>> a..
Visit your group "campernicholson" on the web.>> b..
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:>
campernicholson-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>> c..
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of>Service.>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------->

!

Yahoo! Groups Links

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.